Bengaluru, Karnataka: In a significant development, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru granted bail to a 25-year-old salesman from Kerala, Ajmal Nanath Valiyatt, who was accused in a case involving the commercial quantity seizure of the psychotropic substance Clonazepam. The order, delivered on December 6, 2022, raised questions regarding the petitioner’s direct role in the procurement and trafficking of the banned substance, suggesting his credentials were misused by a co-accused.
The petitioner, Ajmal Nanath Valiyatt (Accused No. 2), was arrested in connection with Cr. No. 48/1/11/2022 registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Bengaluru Zonal Unit, for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 22(b), 23(c), 28, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The NCB case stemmed from the interception of a suspicious parcel at the DHL Express facility near Kempegowda International Airport (KIA), Bengaluru, on May 7, 2022.
The Seizure and Allegations
The intercepted parcel, bearing way bill No. 1826193810, was addressed from “Ajmal Nanath Valiyatt” of Kerala to a recipient in Saudi Arabia. Upon opening, the parcel was found to contain six bottles, ostensibly of ‘Septilin tablets,’ but which actually concealed 2,244 tablets of Rivotril (Clonazepam), a psychotropic substance controlled under the NDPS Act. The total weight of the seized substance was 357 grams. As the small quantity limit for Clonazepam is 5 grams and the commercial quantity limit is 100 grams, the seized amount was categorized as a commercial quantity, which typically attracts stringent bail provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The NCB’s objection to the bail plea strongly contended that the petitioner, along with the owner of the medical shop, Thaha Ummar (Accused No. 1), was involved in a conspiracy and had sent various drugs abroad on multiple occasions. The prosecution argued that Ajmal Valiyatt was well aware of the drug trafficking business and had actively helped book the parcel by providing his Aadhaar card to Accused No. 1 in exchange for money. They also expressed concern that granting bail would allow the petitioner to abscond, tamper with witnesses, and potentially involve himself in similar offenses, especially given his alleged links to international drug trafficking.
Petitioner’s Defense: Misused Identity
In his defense, the petitioner’s counsel, Sri Binu.M., argued that Ajmal Valiyatt was an innocent and law-abiding citizen, working as a salesman at a medical shop named Aliya Medicals in Malappuram District, Kerala. Crucially, the petitioner claimed he was unaware of the specific courier dispatch on the day of the seizure, as he was busy with his sales work. His central argument was that the shop owner, Thaha, had allegedly misused his Aadhaar card and forged his signature to dispatch the banned Clonazepam tablets. The defense pointed out that the doctor’s prescription pad and the medical bill recovered by the investigating agency were sponsored by and in the name of Aliya Medicals, suggesting the owner’s deep involvement, which the NCB appeared to be trying to protect.
Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail
After carefully considering the material placed on record, including the NCB’s seizure report and the petitioner’s statement, Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree acknowledged that the seized quantity (357 grams) was indeed a commercial quantity. However, the court placed significant weight on the petitioner’s stated role in the offense.
The court noted two key findings from the investigation report:
- The parcel was booked by Accused No. 1 using the Aadhaar card of Accused No. 2 (the petitioner).
- Accused No. 1 had forged the signature of the present petitioner.
While the petitioner’s name and address were on the parcel, the court observed that the petitioner was merely a worker under Accused No. 1 in the Aliya Medical Shop. The court’s order stated, “The present petitioner has not booked the parcel directly. His name and credentials has been used by the Accused No. 1.” The order further clarified the distinction in the petitioner’s involvement, noting that “He has not procured the contraband to deliver it to the customers at Abroad. He is a worker under Accused No. 1. He has not financed to procure the said drugs. He is not a partner in the business of drug trafficking of Accused No. 1.”
This observation was critical as it suggests the court was satisfied, at the prima facie stage, that the petitioner did not meet the high threshold of involvement in financing or being an active member of the cartel required for the complete denial of bail under the harsh conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Given that the major portion of the investigation concerning the seizure was concluded and the offense was not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the court found that further custodial interrogation was not warranted. The court determined that the prosecution’s apprehension of the petitioner absconding could be addressed by imposing stringent bail conditions.
Bail Conditions Imposed
The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and ordered the petitioner to be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum. The stringent conditions imposed by the court included:
- Regular attendance before the Investigating Officer once a month (on the first Monday) between 10:00 am and 2:00 pm until the filing of the charge sheet.
- Prohibition from leaving the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
- Not to tamper with witnesses or abscond.
- Cooperation with the investigation.
- Not committing any similar or other offense while on bail.
- Surrender of the petitioner’s passport to the court.
The ruling underscores the importance of evaluating the specific role of each accused, particularly in cases where identity documents may have been misused, even when the seized quantity is commercial. The court concluded that the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to be enlarged on bail.